2007.08.20

Elisa and I don't get to watch very many movies, so we try to be selective about the videos we rent. After seeing and reading a whole lot of great reviews for Hot Fuzz, we decided to give it a try. It was great.

I never saw Shaun of the Dead, mainly because I'm not interested in the zombie genre. However, the same filmmakers created this terrific tongue-in-cheek look at the buddy-cop-action movie genre, and it hits the mark dead on. With an inimitable British style, this comedy really is FUNNY. Especially if you've seen a lot of cop movies (Point Break and Bad Boys 2 are particularly prominent in this movie).

My friend Barry recently blogged about comedies after he and his wife Catherine saw Death at a Funeral. I'll have to add that one to my list, but I think that Hot Fuzz would also appeal to his (and maybe your) critical tastes.

Oh, and by the way, I've added a new TypeList to my sidebar called myFlix. I will add movies and star ratings as Elisa and I see them. We don't see too many (I won't bother adding all the kid movies we have to sit through), but when we do, I'll add it whether it's a DVD or in theaters.

2006.06.12

It's been a while since I have posted about a movie, but today I have to stand up and say to the world, "I LOVE PIXAR!"

Truth be told, I get to watch a lot of animated movies these days, and let me tell you that most of them are terrible. I just don't understand what makes filmmakers think that taking a bad story with weak characters and drawing it (even on computers) somehow makes it okay for public consumption. I haven't seen a quality animated film since The Incredibles.

Enter Cars, the newest release from Pixar. For full disclosure here, I must admit that I have a slight bias for anything Pixar releases. I love the company. I love the cretive culture. I think John Lassetter is the modern day Walt Disney. And, for the record, I am a stockholder (or was...they took away my Pixar shares and gave me a bunch of Disney).

The real reason I love this company is the reason I love this movie. Story, story, story. Everything Pixar puts on screen--and I mean everything--is there to make the story better. Not longer, not more visually eye-popping, but better. Better stories mean better movies. It's as simple as that.

Cars was, in my estimation, the best Pixar film to date. (In case you are wondering, my order would be: Cars, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Monsters Inc., Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2.) The animation was absolutely stunning, needless to say--neon lights reflected in the paint of a moving car...a multi-car crash in a stock car race...WOW! The cast was first rate, and the voices were extremely well-matched (unlike Bruce Willis in Dreamworks' latest, Over the Hedge). But back to my point, it is the story that makes this movie a winner. Heart-warming, inspiring, funny, emotional. I would tell you a really touching story about something Cason said toward the end of the movie, but I don't want to spoil anything.

Long story short, go see this movie, even if you don't have kids. If it makes you feel less foolish, grab some 8-year-old from your block and drag him with you (he'll probably thank you). This is a terrific movie, animated or not, and is worth every effort to see it on the big screen.

2006.01.28

I just wasted 2 hours of my life watching War of the Worlds, which was terrible in spite of the combined forces of Mr. Speilberg, Mr. Cruise, and many many millions of dollars. My struggle with giving this movie such a poor review lies in the fact that it is a re-telling of an old familiar story--the classic novel by H.G. Wells that re-defined a genre, the 1938 radio broadcast by Orson Welles that created mass hysteria across the east coast, and yes, even the 1953 George Pal film--that should by all accounts be a good one. However, the story itself seems to be the first casualty of the aliens in this film.

What I mean to say is that the special effects--in particular the aliens--were quite good. However, it was apparent to me that the filmmakers were so enamored by their own SFX creations that they forgot the first rule of film-making: story is everything. There is little meat in the screenplay, which is important even in a blow-everything-up alien movie. For most of the film we are forced to watch Cruise play a horrible father who makes no progress as a character, and typically stunning Dakota Fanning do little more than stare and occasionally scream. A lack of character development is sometimes forgivable in the event that there are heroics by the main character(s), but again there is none of that here.

I could only help but think of two comparisons. First, Independence Day--a great movie with little character development, but plenty of good 'ol shoot-em-up, heroic, Americans-are-the-best-at-fighting-space-aliens, action. Second, any Pixar film--with more dazzling computer animation and eye-popping visual appeal than any movies around, but never, and I repeat, never at the expense of a great story. Unfortunately, War of the Worlds falls short...far short.

I'd really like to give this movie my lowest rating. However, I must admit the visuals are cool and it would be a lot of fun to watch this movie with commentary on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I'll give it two out of five. (2/5)

2005.12.26

Some people watch movies to escape from reality and be completely entertained. Some watch movies to be scared out of their pants. The movie "Crash" is a head-on with some of the most difficult, disturbing, and depressing aspects of life and humanity. No escaping here.

The story and screenplay are quite good. Set in L.A., there are at least 8 separate sets of characters, each with their own plot-lines, that all weave together and interconnect. While there is seemingly all this connection happening, there is actually very little "connection," as all the characters are isolated and alone in their struggles and difficulties.

I thought this film was an extremely powerful look at some very difficult topics such as prejudice, fear, isolation, loneliness, and corruption. It is filled with real people with real issues, and the emotions it evokes are equally real. I'm not one to get weepy watching a movie, but I found myself sobbing at one point during "Crash." (And I'm talking the uncontrollable, body convulsing, noisy kind of sobbing)

I've tried to temper my enthusiasm for this movie by allowing some distance between my viewing it and writing this review. But even with a few weeks to process and evaluate it, I just can't give it less than the best rating. Kudos to Don Cheadle for a great film. I highly recommend it to anyone willing to experience very powerful emotions and spend some time thinking about all that is good and bad about our humanness. (5/5)

2005.12.12

When Elisa and I started reviewing movies together, we thought it was a great idea except for one problem. In our taste of movies, I'm not a typical "guy" and she's not a typical "girl." Our latest movie is, unfortunately, a perfect example of this phenomenon.

I'm not sure what she'll write about this film, but I know she grew up watching, and loving, Bo and Luke Duke drive the General Lee down dirt roads delivering moonshine with Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane in hot pursuit. I, on the other hand, did not (watch it or love it). In fact, I thought it was rather stupid, and I even had a friend from Georgia (Elisa admits that when she watched it, she didn't even know anyone from the south!).

So what about the movie already? Well, if you take out the 1969 Dodge Charger, and you take out Jessica Simpson in short shorts, you're left with...uuhhh...well...hmmm...umm...ahem, I'm sorry. But, of course, that was true of the TV show, too, right? Well, there are a few differences. Boss Hogg is not fat and sweaty (he's actually played pretty smooth by Burt Reynolds). Sherriff Roscoe P. Coltrane isn't an idiot (which was half the fun of the show), and Flash the beloved Basset Hound doesn't appear much. Bo and Luke were much more incompetent and moronic than in the show...at least in the show they seemed to be able to figure out what Boss Hogg was up to most of the time. But I must say that Willie Nelson makes a pretty good Uncle Jesse.

All in all, there were a few laughs. Most notably when Bo and Luke drive the General Lee, rooftop flag and all, into Atlanta traffic. In this day and age of political correctness, I wasn't sure how they would handle that, but the writers did a pretty good job at poking fun at the absurdity. Also, for me, a good portion of it was filmed on the campus of LSU, so that was pretty fun. I wish, though, that I could say I liked this film, but I didn't. It wasn't terrible, and if there isn't anything else at the video store or in your Netflix queue, it might be worth your time. But in the end the laughs just didn't make it worth it for me. (2/5)

2005.12.10

I'm a sucker for Christmas movies. From Miracle on 34th Street to A Christmas Story to Christmas Vacation, I pretty much love them all. I've watched Elf at least 5 times in the last month. That being said, I must very emphatically say that I did NOT like Christmas With the Kranks. Based on a John Grisham novella entitled "Skipping Christmas" the premise, and namesake, of the book as well as all the events that result, seem somehow believable and charmingly humorous in print. Translated into film, they were absolutely absurd. Honestly, I'm not sure if it was the screenwriting, the directing or the acting, but the characters were hollow, the plot was stapled together and tearing at the seams, and the story was simply not compelling. I'm usually not this harsh with movies, particularly Christmas movies, but I can't give this film anything but my lowest rating. (1/5)

2005.11.27

A while ago, Elisa and I toyed with the idea of husband/wife movie reviews. Most written reviews are by individuals (men, mainly), but when we talked with friends, we always got two reviews--one male and one female. So, for all our married friends who have to agree on a movie to see, here you have the first in our two-sided movie review series, "He said...she said."

=-=-=-=-=

He Said...God and money. I can't think of two topics that are more significant to me right now. Both are addressed thoughtfully and provocatively in the British film, Millions. Two boys find a bag of money two weeks before the British Pound is replaced by the Euro. They have fun trying to spend it without anyone finding out, but there is a constant struggle between the younger wanting to give to the poor and the older wanting to invest and save it. Eventually, adults do find out, including the thief who claims it as his own, and the struggles and difficulties escalate. The thing is, the younger boy is obsessed with saints and has frequent imaginary conversations with them, which ties the idea of money to the ideas of goodness and helping the poor and social responsibility.

I thought the film was pretty charged with great ideas, and it got me thinking (yet again) about how powerful money is in both negative and positive ways. Although it isn't a typical "guy" film, I really enjoyed it. It's up there on my list of British independent films along with Waking Ned Devine and Bend It Like Beckham. Even if you don't go for this kind of movie, I think it's interesting enough that you'll enjoy it. (4/5)

2005.05.31

Ok. I finally saw it. I really have to rant, so if you don't care much about Star Wars, pardon me. I have to agree with a friend of mine who labeled Episode I, "Style over substance." It seems that George Lucas has forgotten the basic elements that make a story great and make a movie a generational icon. Episodes I-III (culminating with Episode III) were technologically amazing, and very ambitious films. However, I can't help but think that all they achieved was "less with more."

More Effects...Less AffectLucas made his mark in the originals with great effects. You can't beat the models in the first three, despite the limitations of that medium. Compared to the computer animation in these films, it was far superior in realism and believability. I may be the only one who feels this way, but Episode III felt so SFX heavy that it actually was a distraction. It seemed that Lucas spent a decade developing the effect sequences, and at the last minute threw in a little story to tie the SFX together.

More Vader...Less DarthI still remember when the smoke cleared and out of the doorway, into a white hallway, flanked by white Stormtroopers, emerged a black, caped, masked figure that embodied all the evil in the galaxy. Darth Vader was, without question, simply evil. There was power in the simplicity of his evil. It was pure, unwavering, and merciless. Compare that with the not-so-evil Anakin-turned-Vader in Episode III. I was never convinced of Anakin's inner turmoil in I and II, and in Episode III it just never came together. The actual "turing to the dark side" scene was terrible, but not so terrible as the "frankenstein" scene when Vader lets out an anguished howl about Padme. Are you kidding? Vader wouldn't care about a girl! And how does Anakin go from honest-intentioned young Jedi to kid-slaying evil monger and back to "I'm-so-sad-about-my-true-love" yelping? Someone just didn't think this through.

More Talking...Less CharacterWhose idea was it to have Stormtroopers talk? I realize they talked a little in Episode IV, but for the most part they were nameless, faceless, voiceless drones that simply did the evil they were commanded to do. Not only do their predecessors in Episode III talk, but they often walk around with their helmets off, which makes them more like actual characters. The problem with this is that the more characters there are in a George Lucas screenplay, the less we can believe any of them. In Episode IV, there were exactly FOUR characters we had to invest in, not including Wookies and droids. And there was only one bad-guy we had to be concerned with. Lucas really overextends his writing ability with movies that have dozens of characters to introduce and develop. Compare the strength of these two appeals to come to the dark side: "Join me, Luke, and together we will rule the galaxy as father and son." (Vader to Luke in V) vs. "The dark side isn't really all that bad, Anakin, and besides, I can teach you a really neat trick to keep your wife alive." (Palpatine to Anakin in III)

More Plot...Less StoryUnless you're a nerd, you probably still don't know what the heck the clone wars are, and you probably don't really understand all the political complexities that were poorly developed in Episodes II and III. I am dumbfounded by the sheer amount of information Lucas expects us to keep track of in these films. Remember 'Star Wars' (Episode IV)? The bad guys built a huge planet-blasting ship called the Death Star, the good guys stole the plans and destroyed it, and along the way a young kid learns about the Force. If you can't sum up the plot in a sentence or two, it's too complex.

The list goes on. There were more worlds to create in a believable way, more emotional complexities to explain with dialogue, more story line subtleties to deal with, and more explanation of the things we wish had been kept a mystery (such as the force, or the exact way the dark side "consumed" Anakin until he was all Vader, all the time). All of this "more" amounts to a film experience that was less than satisfying.

I will say this: the film had its strengths. The story itself is truly classic and, let's face it, the reason we all waited so long for this one. The only problem is, we all knew the story before the opening banner scrolled. We knew Anakin became Vader, we knew Padme gave birth to Luke and Leia, and we knew The Jedis ceased to exist except for a cute old green guy on Dagobah. Maybe this is why Lucas felt obliged to dress up the story we all knew was coming with additional plot lines that were less consequential, and to hide it behind state-of-the-art special effects.

2005.05.24

I admit I was a late comer to Lord of the Rings. Until the movies came out, I hadn't read the books. I didn't even read The Hobbit as a kid. I did, however, read the Chronicles of Narnia. Many times. I owned the whole set. In my humble opinion, these books are simply brilliant (though not to be compared to LOTR), and as an adult I am still captivated by the stories and imagery.

I am eagerly awaiting the December 9 release of the newest movie rendition. As a kid I used to watch the 1979 animated TV version we had on tape (which was horrible), and I am excited about the translation of this story to the big screen. Other live action versions have been done, but this one seems to have the financial backing to be special. The good news is, Disney is involved. The bad news is, Disney is involved. With the success of the Harry Potter films and the LOTR trilogy, there is a tremendous upside potential for this film. However, Hollywood has a knack for taking great stories and cheapening them. We'll just have to wait and see.